The Local Planet - 04.03.05
Frustrated Communities
Inconsistency and lack of transparency in decision making

Dear Editor
One would want to be living on a desert island not to be aware of
the increasing frequency of opposition to developments and major infrastructures
in Ireland and one has to ask why ?

There are serious issues that must be
addressed. Communities who find themselves embroiled in objecting
to projects do not do so lightly, it is at huge cost to them personally
and economically. They are involved not because they have nothing
better to do but because they know it is they who must be the guardians
of their community, their environment and home. Until they can have
confidence in the process and until that process is transparent, this
situation will continue.

Public consultation and truly democratic
decision-making are fundamental to the principles on which our constitution
is based. I believed in the process of national policy being decided
through debate and discussion and being drafted into law by those
we elect, for the greater good of the country at large.

However as a member of a community who
has followed the democratic process to the letter and engaged at every
level whole-heartedly, I now realise this is not how business gets
done.
CHASE as an organisation has participated in a planning oral hearing
and an EPA oral hearing, where we as the community presented our case,
brought forward expert witnesses, cross examined those of the other
side and debated the issues that were of concern to us.

In his report on the Planning Oral Hearing
for the proposed Toxic Waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy, the Chief
Planning Inspector gave 14 reasons why this facility should not get
planning permission, one of them being that he could not guarantee
this development did not pose a threat to public safety.

The proposal is also contrary to National
policies namely, the National Spatial Strategy, the National Hazardous
Waste Management Plan, the Proximity Principle, the Precautionary
Principle. (Ref. Oral Hearing Ringaskiddy 2003, www.chaseireland.org).

It is in breach of international policies,
to which the Government by way of International Agreement is a consenting
Party. These include the Stockholm Convention on the reduction and
elimination of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Rio Convention
on Biodiversity and the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming.

Yet despite this, on the nod of 10 political
appointees ( the Bord of an Bord Pleanala) all of these policies and
warnings have been ignored, the Board overruled their own inspector
(BEARING IN MIND THE INSPECTOR IS THE BOARD’S OWN EXPERT AT
THE HEARINGS) and decided to make this community some type of “sacrificial
zone”.

If you or I were applying for planning
for a house and the shape of the windows was wrong, we would be turned
down! Why then shouldn’t a community who have won the argument
on the planning issues at every stage, not feel frustrated and disenfranchised.

What needs to be made clear in this whole
debate is that one needs to distinguish between National policy and
Government policy and there-in lies the problem. The Government has
decided, for whatever reason, to foist incineration upon the country
as a means of waste management. It does not fit well with policies
that have been adopted but somehow or other they will shoehorn it
in. If not by consensus, then by stealth and, lets call a spade a
spade, . .. ...... spin.

The government by promoting an activity
which will damage out health (ref. EPA Oral Hearing 2005), will also
do irreparable damage to our environment. Not to give support to the
promotion of safer alternatives or to the nurturing of sustainable
clean businesses and technologies, which will spring up due to the
expansion of recycling efforts, is clearly short sighted.

We are back at the old Nuclear power debate.
The Government say we need incineration or we will be left behind
by the rest of Europe, in he same way they said the same thing about
nuclear power, thirty years ago. The people of the time said “no,
there are better ways”, and today we are one of the leading
economies of Europe, without nuclear power.

We know there are better ways forward
in waste management, there are many new technologies and approaches
that will allow us deal with our waste in the 21st century, using
21st century solutions.

We as a nation are coming to the waste
debate rather late, at a time when other countries are now looking
at other technologies and enlightened ways of dealing with the waste
issue. We have a perfect opportunity to use up the spare incineration
capacity in Europe, which exists, while we develop better and more
innovative ways of treating and minimizing our waste. The rate of
building incinerators in Europe has also slowed due to our international
commitments, the WHO and the Stockholm Convention wants to rid the
world of ‘POPs’ so damaging are they to our environment
and health.

The EU guidance is as follows:
–“The Commission does not promote incineration. We do
not consider that this technique is favourable to the environment
or that it is necessary to ensure a stable supply of waste for combustion
over the long term.”

We now know from the EPA Oral Hearing
2005, that no risk assessment on health or on flora and fauna has
been done, which means that the effects of the operation of this development
on the community has not been addressed at all. (EPA Guidelines).

The reasons the Chief Planning Inspector
recommended refusal for this facility still exist. The threat to public
safety is still there. The same Environment Impact Statement has been
submitted by this company to the EPA, as was to the Planning Oral
Hearing where it was deemed as “legally inadequate and fails
to conform to the mandatory requirement.” (Inspector’s
Report, An Bord Pleanala 04.131196)

This is a waste industry which is poorly
regulated yet it deals with waste that is highly regulated. This is
a genuine concern for the community and should also be of great concern
to the pharm-chemical industry, in relation to the fact that this
facility will have a monopoly on the hazardous waste handled in Ireland,
if it were to go ahead. Proper planning and waste licence application
has not been followed here. This is a matter of public record now.
The burden of proof should not rest on the community, it should be
protected by our National policies, which need to be properly implemented
and funded and not sit on shelves to be ignored.

Communities do not want to set national
policies, they want to see them being implemented. What they do object
to is these same policies being ignored and bandied about in the interest
of ”Government policy” as opposed to National policy.

We have now been through a second Oral
Hearing with the EPA, where the community again looked for answers
to questions we were told would be addressed at this stage of the
process. Yet when we as a community asked these questions at this
stage, they are not answered.

The curious division between the respective
roles of the planning authority and the EPA has not helped in the
process, as both seem to function as if in a vacuum. This cannot lead
to sound planning decisions. Is it any wonder communities are frustrated
when they witness such inconsistency and lack of transparency. If
such communities had faith in a process they saw served them well,
we would not be at this state of impasse.

A quote from the Governments commissioned
report into the effects of incineration on health, sums up the issue
well;
“Public trust, whether it is placed in the regulators, in compliance
with the regulations or in the information provided, will be fundamental
in achieving even a modicum of consensus for any future developments
in waste policy in Ireland”.